Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> I don't know how relevant this is (I'm still on RDF 101) but I believe
> anonymity is very important in the Lambda calculus, and I don't see why a
> processor of RDF shouldn't use this calculus. Things like lazy evaluation
> that this calculus offers could be very useful - I suppose what
> I'm getting
> at is theres no need to make all the connections at the start -
> the ends of
> the graph can be left dangling until you need/want to bind them.
> Whether or
> not there is a parallel between RDF anonymity and the Lambda
> version I leave
> to the gurus - if there is, anonymity should be *very* useful.
>
What you say is entirely correct (IMHO). When creating RDF triples there is
a need to assign node a URI. A URI ought not be always equated with an ID --
an ID is a name, but a URI can also be an address. This discussion all too
often conflates names and addresses.
For example: the person named "James Smith", the man sitting third from the
left in the front row, one is identified by name, the other by address but a
URI could be built from either.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org